Harry is floating on CLOUD ATLAS!!! No spoilers.

There are films that simply strive for greater heights than the average blockbuster. Most of the big movies that we’re conditioned to see are essentially attempting a perfect Swan dive. Occasionally you get a blockbuster that really wants to do something showy… take the TRANSFORMERS series for example. Stunning visual effects – which equates to adding twists and turns in your blockbuster dive, but the legs totally separated more on every twist and when it hit the water – lots of splash, but that’s not good in this metaphoric dive. Doesn’t mean we don’t get perfect blockbuster entertainment – and these flicks. Something like THE DARK KNIGHT or AVENGERS or AVATAR – you get something that might moderately make you think about not only the spectacle of all the twists and turns, but even when it’s a flawless jaw dropping wow… it’s still a dive. It still starts on the board and ends in the water. Ya know?

Then there’s a movie like CLOUD ATLAS.

Imagine you’re at the Olympics. An unassuming diver that represented a country you didn’t necessarily root for or supported took the platform. The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live. It was captured by all the cameras – and everyone saw something different, spectacular and transcendently significant that leads them to leading a better life.

That’s CLOUD ATLAS.

It isn’t at all like that paragraph, it is it’s own bit of insanity that will begin by making you feel unsure. Not exactly getting the significance of the edited together story lines. But as the cuts come, as centuries pass, characters age, evolve and transform – you see a thread of a meaning to life. The makeup alone in this movie is just stunning and when you get to the end credits where they show you who played what in the film – you’ll discover an audience truly appreciative for being played. It isn’t a stunt… it’s a cumulative effect. I never once looked for Waldo. It wasn’t about the actors – it was about the eyes, the lives being led, the future enlightening the present while clouding the past.

The film, for me, dove into a realm of spirituality and soul that is non-denominational, but felt right. A lot of couples that get married talk about that moment in which their eyes first locked. It’s a powerful moment – even now in my memory – the greatest thing I’ve ever seen were the eyes of the woman I married. And I knew it almost instantly. It changed me fairly radically. But that first moment, that electrical connection – that memory – the feeling it hits me with. That’s explored in this film. You find that there are people you don’t like and yet you don’t know why – you just don’t like them & worse their very existence seems to be there to drive you insane. Why do things happen to us? Why are there so many coincidences. WHY is it the way it is?

CLOUD ATLAS explores the possibilities. Explores them with three amazing filmmaking talents directing. Tom Tykwer, Andy & Lana Wachowski. They’ve made a mesmerizing film that as I’ve described thus far may seem like an impenetrable mess of juxtaposed existences manipulated by filmmakers to create the exact feelings that I’m going off on, but it isn’t a mess. It isn’t impenetrable. It isn’t boring or cold. It isn’t being stuffed down your throat.

Very quickly you’ll begin to get the hang of the progressing parallel stories and how it is all connected, but you won’t see where anything is leading, those things are revealed exquisitely in manners that produce a feeling of a myriad of sensations and emotions.

This is a type of film that explores notions and concepts that you’d expect in a Douglas Trumbull film like BRAINSTORM – but it is even more far out than that. But it feels right.

Recounting the accounts of the film, honestly, I couldn’t be more disinterested in telling you the detailed shape of the stories of this film. For me, the film reinforced personal beliefs I have in how I tend to express my soul to folks unfortunate enough to have to endure my insanity. But as Glenn Ford said, “You are here for a reason!” – and while we can’t all be SUPERMAN – and while we may not find that reason in our lives, the reason exists, there is a point. A cumulative effect. A single drop of water can’t see how it contributed to the Grand Canyon. Are we really any more aware of how we affect existence. The papers we shuffle, the emails we write, the shit we shit and the folks we’ve loved.

It never will make perfect sense – It being “LIFE” – but I believe we each do the thing we do and strive to do better the next day, the next hour, the next breath. We move with the joy of discovery of life. Reaching a degree of personal peace in life, genuine happiness and love for the world we’re a part of becomes exceedingly hard to manage the more of the NOW you are. Obsessively trying to be up to date. Focused on what is trending, what is everyone about – instead of trying to understand what you’re about.

CLOUD ATLAS is a movie that will reinforce one’s belief in love – easily handled – and beautifully so. Tears of joy and sadness will flow, but when the hat trick of sewing up a film that upon first viewing – sent me home to write a 3,500 word review and stay up till 6am writing, only to have the Gremlin in the machine eat it all. That was a far more traditional write up where I talked about the non-linear bliss of it all. I wrote ages about the power of actors and actresses to portray different characters, emotional ranges – and then when enhanced by stunning make-up – and you have talent like that attached to every layer of this film… you end up with something truly unbelievably great. I couldn’t watch another film that night at Fantastic Fest – I just wanted to wallow in the afterglow of a film with a big brain that didn’t explain it with needless exposition. That didn’t hold our hand, but trusted that when we are thrown into this story our mental parachute will allow us a safe and joyful landing at the end of the film.

People use the term mind-blowing – this is what they’re talking about.

Run to this. You claim you’re tired of the same fucking shit every time you go to a theater. Well go to this. Then realize you’re going to buy the score – and you’re going to sit at you computer as you listen to it and tearfully explain to this dear friend, lover or associate why you must see this film with them. This film is to be experienced with the people in life whom you enjoy your favorite conversations. The conversations that you take to heart and that mean the world to you at 5 am on a long night. See this with someone you love to experience new things with. Someone that if you look at them in the movie, they’re looking at you at the exact moment you look at them with the same, “HOLY SHIT” look blazed upon their faces.

This is entertainment as well as enlightenment. Jim Broadbent will own you. Tom Hanks is just amazing. Halle Berry is wow. Jim Sturgess and Doona Bae… man, Doona Bae is extraordinary – you won’t shake her. You’ll have moments of her and the characters her soul embodies with you for a very long time. It has nearly been a month now. A month since I’ve seen this. This is me writing about the film a month after I’ve seen it, albeit I am listening to the score while I express that that you’ve got to go so you can applaud Keith David – and I know you love to hate Hugo Weaving and Hugh Grant – because they can do that oh so well. But here – BRAVO.

We can be so much more than what we are in the presence. I love science fiction and fantasy because occasionally on a blue moon or when a star falls and you make a wish – we get a film that makes us cheer. It gave us themes to discuss, ideas to wallow in and perhaps it can change how you look at everyone. Past the Wal-mart fashion, past the piercings and tattoos, past tits & dicks and realize we can occupy this space in a better way than we do now. Yeah, gas is high, it isn’t like we can pull it out of clean air. (actually apparently we can now btw, so much for clean air) But think multigenerationally. Think with the whole of time, find the context you belong in and is that who you want to be.

I love movies that just get you grasping at existence, while also thinking what an awesome wise old scarred up man Tom Hanks can be if he just gets mangled a bit and lives another 50 years…. At least.

This is the best thing opening today, by leaps and bounds! And I have to say, while I hear that almost everything that you’re looking forward to for the rest of the year is just amazing. I find it hard to imagine any film that we’ll see for a long time, that will hit this particular symphony of notes with me. I want a wetworks socket to load the film straight into my mind and the only way I have to do that is to revisit the film… and often. The complement of Tykwer to the Wachowskis… it’s the magic this film has. There’s a very interesting alchemy to this film that feels just perfect. That’s such a gift.

It is VERY good...but don't be fooled. Philosophically and thematically it is on a 9th grade creative writing level. The whole interconnectedness/history repeats itself/individuality vs. social cog...it touches upon but doesn't ruminate on freewill vs. predetermination. Visually (apart from some piss-poor makeup..and trust me, the make up is Munsters level at some points.) it is a stunner, and surprisingly, the W's have put together a cracking good narrative, connecting all six stories in a brilliant way.
Don't get me wrong: this is a must-see movie, but trust me: like Avatar, the thoughts behind most of the brilliant movie-making are like the third-best idea your bong-hitting college drop-out roommate ever had. I'm not surprised Harry thought it was profound.

My two favourite critics on this site have already fallen in love with CLOUD ATLAS, but I was extremely dissapointed by it. It had some great moments, but the flaws outweigh the good. It needed a better script, and lose the bit about escaping a retirement home. I friggin hated that. But I really wanted to like this movie, I wanted to love it.

You dickheads aren't releasing this in Europe until the end of Feb? Well guess what? You just lost a ticket right here. There'll be a way to see this before that date and once again that's why films get downloaded rather than folks paying to see them. It beggars belief that time and time again they do this.
Oh wait, we can have an early release, before the USA? Battleship? <weeps uncontrollably)

When I look into your eyes , it feels like I know you are some shit, you know what I'm fucking saying, you stupid cunt? I hate your face. I want to fuck it.
There's this feeling that I get and I don't know what it is, but when I feel a certain way I hear this music that I've never heard before, but its real or some shit in my mind. Muthafuckas can't take that from me.

but to compare it to AVATAR is folly. Yes AVATAR was an excellent technical achievement and the story was as good as it needed to be.
Cloud Atlas, OTOH, is far more ambitious. Almost like a fucked up Robert Altman film, told across space and time. Scenes and timelines segueing into one another effortlessly.
Anyone remember that masterful 20 minute set piece in the middle of MAGNOLIA, where it moves from one character's actions to the next, almost as if its a musical? Cloud Atlas is like that for 3 hours. and its breathtaking. i was literally speechless and exhausted at the end of it.

it might not be for you.
They are practically in every scene (which is a good thing for me)
and for anyone who discounts Berry's charisma or talent, i found her main sequence to be the most riveting.
I cannot wait to see this again.

Who's the genius who gave over $100 million for this thing? Did they honestly think it would make money? I'm honestly all for original movies and risky movies going to the screen, but this movie looks like an interesting mess, at best.

We all need to see movies like that. I can't wait.
I figured when I was reading Harry talk about how beautiful this film is that the troll army would start thinking about how they could stop jerking off to anime and figure out ways to try to shit on Harry's bliss. I think all you trolls should stop for a moment and think about how you could actually be a real human if you stopped hating everything you see and maybe stop and try to live life. Maybe step away from the keyboard and try to be happy for once.

and wildly positive reviews across the board here. I'm not saying this sounds suspicious, but do you guys have meetings where you decide which movies AICN is going to get behind? This is like John Carter all over again.

Oh well, there is a film that will have been seen by half of the UK as a dodgy download, or on import DVD/Bluray by then. Seriously why such long periods of time between releases across the pond, I thought it was a thing of the past. Solomon Kane only just getting a US release, I saw that pile of poo a long time ago on DVD!

Most critics are calling it a beautiful mess. The "critics" at Aicn are jizzing themselves over it. There are ads promoting this film all over this website. Hard to see where the credibility of Harry's review is coming from.

Unfortunately Harry, when people claim to want something new, they really just want the same old thing made fresh again.
You guys want original movies, yet you don't support them. You want them R rated, yet you don't support them. You want sequels, yet you whine when they're too different. If a remake is too different, you ask "why call it a remake?" If the remake is too similar, you ask "what was the point?"
Nothing pleases them.
I've read the forums here and about long enough to know the score. They won't support Cloud Atlas. They don't support anything remotely like this. They support artistic crud like The Raid because it has "teh best action ever!!!"
Save your breath Harry. They want men in cool looking tights who they can worship.
They're not interested in introspection or thought, which Cloud Atlas brings in spades.

both are stunningly beautiful to look at, both went "high concept" both ended up pooping the bed with their ham fistedness.
I think it's a big mess... I think it's like trying to teach some collectivist nonsense to a jr high student.
If you ARE Jr High student, it comes off as this amazing concept you had never imagined.
If you are older.wiser and life experienced, it comes off as this silly ,unrealistic , far loony left idealistic dream.
Mehhh, didn't hate it, didn't love it.
Frankly, I'd rather watch Avatar

I don't care if a movie's concepts/ideas are new, retreads, hackneyed or amazing. If the movie is well done and entertaining I like it.
However if the entire movie relies on these high concepts, they better work. IMO, they don't work in Cloud Atlas.
claiming that we have to like something because it's new and original is a silly idea.
Did you like Crystal Pepsi? the McRib?(I admit to grabbing one every year when the come back out)
all I'm saying is you like something for what it brings, not what it might bring (or what you hope it brings)
I'll take derivative and entertaining over original and preachy/boring any day of the week.
(though, I would prefer original and entertaining)

The trailer has enthralled me since I first saw it, and CLOUD ATLAS whispers of being an actual original and thought provoking movie - which is DESPERATELY needed in times of GI JOE, TRANSFORMERS and "Found Footage" movies.
It's currently at 59% on Rotten Tomatoes, which may be a good thing because I enjoy polarizing movies - and this certainly looks to be one.
However....it is troubling that AICN is frothing at the mouth over CLOUD ATLAS while showing so any ads for it. I think that I come to AICN now more for the Talkback then the actual "reviews" at this point.
With that said.....please God, let CLOUD ATLAS give me the movie fix that I ned so bad.
I'll check back in after I see it.

While I like to be entertained, I go out of my way to find unconventional movies.
It's not 'my thing', it's more a function of being damned old and having seen every damn movie made, I think.
"...introspection and thought..." is certainly another component of my not following the lemmings to zone out to mindless dreck.
I've had parts in a couple of movies with A-list 'parts'; actors, directors, writers, etc. and both were cookie cutters of better movies. One I don't hate, just kinda 'meh' about. The other is enough of a hot mess that it's actually playing locally right now and I told friends and family to pass.
I only work (in film) rarely, so I doubt I'll get a chance to be in a Cloud Atlas or anything close, so ill have to be content with just watching it many times.
Ultimately, you're right; most of the folks crying for something better are only paying lip service.

I'm all for something new, as long as it's good. Also, isn't this based on a book? That makes this an adaption, not something that's really new. The sense I get from the reviews outside AICN is that this is really ambitious, but maybe doesn't follow through with the delivery. Is it really saying all these things Harry and Co. says it is, or are they just projecting themselves onto it? I suppose I'll have to see it to know for sure, but I'm skeptical that this movie is really about anything. I couldn't make heads or tails out of the trailers.

I saw Cloud Atlas, and I will say this: it's ambitious. But if we're being honest, just because it's ambitious doesn't make it good. In fact, there were elements to this film which were almost laughably bad. But I suspect that so-called "cineastes" and reviewers will use this film to justify their existence. I mean, is there really a less-needed profession than a movie reviewer? Maybe, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. So reviewers will use this film as something to point to to show they "know" more about film than the masses. Since I didn't like it, they will say I am "lazy" (like in Nordling's review) and just don't know enough about film to "get it". Maybe I don't. But maybe, just maybe, Cloud Atlas isn't really that good.

I get the sense from the reviews out there that Cloud Atlas is either life altering, incomprehensible and boring, or something in between.
One box office projection has it at $12 million against a $100 million budget, so I think the folks here and elsewhere who profess to love movies should get out and go see it.
Yeah, you might loathe it. Or love it. Or simply wish for your $12 and 3 hours back.
Doesn't matter. It will inform your knowledge of movies and maybe encourage other film makers to roll the dice and produce "Rainbow Roadmap" or something.

tl;dr- Quit bitching about "the same old crap" and go see Cloud Atlas.
They both have a point in that the familiar refrain among fan-boys and fan-girls is that we are tired of the same old crap that is passed off as entertainment.
I plan on putting my money where my mouth is and going to see this film. I go to a Wachowski picture expecting to be entertained and enlightened. Bound showed me that you can still do film noir and make it relevant. The Matrix movies showed me that you can do cyberpunk and not only make it entertaining, but speak to the human condition as only the best of speculative fiction can do. Speed Racer showed me that you can film what you love and make it kick so much ass, even if many folks don't get what you're gushing about. And V for Vendetta proved Alan Moore wrong by showing that you can, in fact, film a comic book story in a way that the audience can understand, even if that audience doesn't get the message.
So, my fellow nerds, I submit...no, I CHALLENGE you to put your money where your mouth is and go reward the Waschowski's and Tom Twiker for their hard work.

I'm getting strong vibes similar to The Fountain here. That film was gorgeous to look at, but the plot made no sense. The film didn't even try to explain itself. Hugh Jackman yells at a tree in space? Ok. Whatever you say, fellas. My thoughts after the film was over was, what the the hell did I just watch? Yes, film students and wannabe philosophers can say it's about this or that. It's not the same thing as the filmmakers telling a coherent story. I'm curious to see Cloud Atlas now, but I suspect the result will be the same.

There's ton of lie-max around here too!
Warners or Imax/AMC must not be to confident
which is a shame. I wanted to see this BIG.
I'm still of the mind that SPEED RACER was
ahead of it's time. If they launched it after
AVATAR in 3-D @ IMAX, people would've
responded differently.

I don't go around all day wearing a badge that says *look at me, I'm a geek!!!*
I'll see Cloud Atlas, whether I goddamn well please (for the record, I want to see it cause I am a fan of both Tykwer and the Wachowski brothers/sisters/starship/whatever they want to call themselves as a filmmaking duo). The bottom line is no matter whether Cloud Atlas is a box office triumph or failure, I won't blame myself or some demographic bogeyman named Mr. and Mrs. Geek.

*The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live.*
Yeah, I get that Harry is trying to emulate the tone of the movie with this...ahem...sentence. He succeeds about as well as Brian Dennehy would demonstrating a nude lap-dance. Sure, you'd get the point, but who the hell would want to see such a thing?

Ya know? Imagine you’re at the Olympics. And you saw this live. That’s CLOUD ATLAS. It changed me fairly radically. That’s explored in this film. CLOUD ATLAS explores the possibilities.
Tom Tykwer, Andy & Lana Wachowski. It isn’t impenetrable. It isn’t boring or cold. But it feels right.
A cumulative effect. Run to this. Well go to this.
Jim Broadbent will own you. Tom Hanks is just amazing. Halle Berry is wow. But here – BRAVO. But think multigenerationally.
That’s such a gift.

The visuals look nice. But no way am I spending fifteen bucks to watch this. It looks boring and long winded. The movie is 164 minutes long for christ sake. Plus saying "From the directors of The Matrix Trilogy and Run Lola Run", you're trying to get asses in the seats who will expect some action. I'm betting some people are going to see this and be pissed that they didn't see an action movie.

like a true troll.
After 4 'sentences' it started to sink in..i have 5 more paragraphs, filled with crap like "this metaphoric diveexplodes into pedals of beautiful flowersrotating ethereal stages transcendently significan the future enlightening the present while clouding the past realm of spirituality and soul that is non-denominational electrical connection juxtaposed existences feeling of a myriad of sensations Tears of joy and sadness " blah blah blah to sit through.
My god what a horrible review. a failure of epic, mindblowing proportions. thank you Harold for this wonderfull piece of garbage

this thing is an absolute slog to sit through.
I was like... this is ok... coming up on 3 hours... and then i looked at my watch and I was 1 hour in.. DAMN!
I appreciate the photography and art and all that jazz.. it just was a pain. in. the. ass. to sit through.

I really wonder what an article that Harry writes after he's smoked some reefer would look like because he already throws so much shit against the wall it's next to impossible to know what the Hell he is talking about.
All I know from the last few years, if Harry raves this much about a movie, I probably won't like it...

The Guardian called it 'a beautiful mess'
If i want thought provoking i'll watch 'The Master' thank you.
If I want big SFX i'll watch Pacific Rim Man of Steel & Godzilla.
When i want to watch a 'beautiful mess' i'll wait for this to come to NetFlix

...this film looks like some serious pseudo-religious garbage. Jeezus Harry, will you bible belt saddoes ever get a grip on reality, or is reality so unbearable that you can't bear to look..? 'What Dreams May Come II: Electric Boogaloo'.

Something original has happened (original for hollywood anyway).
You need to see it because it's original.
You will love it because it's original.
Even if you don't love it you still need to see it because it's original.
Did I say it's original?
...
It's original.

Remember how, when he saw TDKR, he was awed and floored by Christopher Nolan's choice to not stick to the Batman canon? Remember how he didn't write that he was hurt, angry, and *profoundly disappointed* that Nolan had characters such as Alfred and Com. Gordon react in new and human ways to Batman's obsessions?
Notice how Harry never, NEVER EVER, uses the *Geek* moniker as a shield for defending what he thinks is sacrilege in a film? (*a true GEEK would NEVER get rid of his toys like in Toy Story 3...a true GEEK would NEVER believe Batman would retire....a true GEEK says MEESA LUVS ME SOME JAR-JAR).
Good on ya Harry. Keep fighting the good fight.

The shock of watching the Cloud Atlas trailer, and witnessing white actors portray Asian characters, is that there is no shock. Because it is absolutely nothing new. It was part of the tradition of American entertainment long before Luise Rainer won the Oscar for The Good Earth in 1937. It was a torch passed on through the decades, from Charlie Chan to Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Unlike blackface, yellowface has never quite fallen out of vogue. And Cloud Atlas shows us it’s still in-fashion today.
Above: Actor Hugo Weaving in yellowface in a promotional image for Cloud Atlas
If you don’t understand the controversy around Cloud Atlas, then in all likelihood, you are focused on the film in terms of its artistic quality. What you appreciate about the film is its grand vision: the sweeping soundtrack, grand special effects, universal concepts of reincarnation and rebirth, adventure on the scale of centuries or millennia.
So I’d like to make something perfectly clear: our concerns are not about the quality of the writing, the story, the special effects, makeup artistry, or cinematography.
Our discussion will be about social impact, culture, and politics. The nature of a multimillion dollar venture like Cloud Atlas is that it is shaped by culture and society. It is designed for the consumption of moviegoers. Millions of consumers will pay to see this film. The act of payment will encourage other films of similar cloth and make. The act of viewing will refine the viewer’s sense of pop culture, if only in a small way.
Ultimately, whatever the film’s grand aspirations (or achievements), my belief is that Cloud Atlas will eventually be viewed through the same lens as films like The Good Earth, Birth of a Nation, or even Dumbo. These are films known to have artistic merit, that tell engaging stories, with imagery both striking and iconic. They are also films that are, in one way or another, formed by the culture and politics of their respective eras. They are deeply embedded with concepts of race, interwoven with acts of exclusion and stereotype and prejudice.
In a promotional image from Cloud Atlas, an Asian woman sits behind a barred window next to a sign that reads “Comfort Hives”
Luise Rainer’s yellowface depiction of a subservient and silent Chinese girl in won an Academy Award. Her role perfectly matched Western notions about how a Chinese woman should behave, a notion controlled and depicted by white faces and white bodies. Similarly, Birth of a Nation was groundbreaking in a number of fillmmaking techniques that we take for granted now: elements as fundamental as panning shots, the modern conception of a battle sequence, and the notion of a plot of building action and eventual climax. But its technical and dramatic successes are overshadowed because we, as modern viewers, recognize the racism implicit in the plot, of white writers and white actors controlling what it means to be black on the American screen. These ideas, plucked straight from theatrical minstrelsy, still form the basis for modern anti-black prejudice.
In a scene from the trailer, a white male character monologues about a dream where all the (Asian) waitresses had the same face.
In watching the Cloud Atlas trailer, the parallels are clear. As with these other films, we see that white creators and performers are permitted to determine what it means to be Asian. It’s frustrating, because the trailer suggests a story that comfortably meshes with preconceptions and stereotypes of Asians: of a futuristic world of high technology and little soul, where the “all-look-same” vision of Asianness is directly translated into racks of identical, interchangeable Asian “fabricant” clones. It suggests a world where white actors (in yellowface) and Asian actresses enter into romantic trysts–while excluding the voices and faces of Asian American actors.
In a promotional still from Cloud Altas, Asian actress Bae Doona cries as she is snuggled by Jim Sturgess in yellowface
We cannot judge what the Wachowski siblings intend to do with their depiction of Asian people any more than we could judge what M. Night Shyamalan intended in casting The Last Airbender. The intentions may be different, but acts of exclusion and discrimination cannot be about intent, but only about outcome.
Some will suggest that the racebending roles given to some of the actresses in Cloud Atlas mitigate or even forgive the use of yellowface in the film. This strikes me as tokenism of the worst kind. Placing a white performer in yellowface is to put a megaphone to the lips of an A-list actor so he can announce “chink” before an audience of millions. The equivalent use of “whiteface” cannot compare to the act, because there is no history of white exclusion from the American mainstream. In the last decade, 71% of Warner Bros movies’ lead roles went to white men. All other demographics – black, Latino, Asian, Native American, women of any race – have access to one-quarter the leading roles as white men. (This lopsided distribution is remarkably disproportionate compared to the demographics of moviegoers; according to the MPAA, in 2011, women accounted for 51% of all ticket purchases, and people of color were more likely to go to the movies than white viewers.)
All too often in conversations about race in the 2010s, it seems that the racial conversation is all about performing the same racist actions but justifying them with new words. The use of yellowface, or even blackface, can be justified if the director uses the term “post-racial” or “colorblind.” But an honest look at statistics and demographics reveals that our society is anything but. We cannot enter a “post-racial” world by pretending problems do not exist, by pretending that lopsided representation is justified.
Acting as an apologist preserves the status quo in favor of those who already have the lion’s share of representation, who “don’t care” about race issues because they are fundamentally content with the system. If you can see your race and gender reflected in 80% of the faces that dominate movie posters, then it becomes meaningless to you. It’s worth nothing. It doesn’t damage your self-esteem, as it does for American children of any demographic other than “white male.”
For the rest of us, Cloud Atlas represents simply another film in the long tradition of Hollywood exclusion. It has been a very, very long road. We can only keep the discussion alive, despite how much further yet we need to go.

I mentioned a Crisis movie on this site a couple of weeks back and got into a slanging match with an asshole for my trouble.
You don't REALLY like original.
You like new twists on old things.
There are 23 bond movies.
There are 14 medal of honor videogames.
There are over 300 70's movies and there is always one more asshat who wants more of the same.
More of the same.
More of the same.
More of the same.
Yes, Crisis would be a CBM but it would be a CBM that opens with an entire universe being wiped out. Tell me you've seen THAT before.
And you know if Cloud Atlas was made AFTER Crisis people would love it more.
Why? Because then it would be more of the same.

With the East Coast bracing for a major storm the box office slowed down significantly on Friday, which allowed crowd-pleasing holdover Argo to take first place ahead of weak newcomers Silent Hill: Revelation 3D and Cloud Atlas.
Ben Affleck's Iranian hostage crisis thriller dipped 22 percent to an estimated $3.96 million, which brings its total to $52.4 million through 15 days. After settling for second place in its first two weekends, Argo should finish a top the box office this weekend with around $13 million.
Silent Hill: Revelation 3D debuted to an estimated $3.5 million from 2,933 locations yesterday. That's less than half of its 2006 predecessor's $8.1 million opening, and for the weekend it's likely going to earn less than $10 million total.
In third place, Cloud Atlas grossed an estimated $3.46 million at 2,008 venues. That's more than The Fountain made through its first three days, but it's still a disappointment for a big-budget movie with so much box office pedigree. It should earn north of $10 million for the weekend (it will hold better than Silent Hill), but based on the unique nature of the movie it's hard to say exactly how much it will wind up with.
Paranormal Activity 4 plummeted 79 percent to an estimated $3.14 million. That's actually worse than Paranormal Activity 3's 76 percent drop, making this a new low for the franchise. Through eight days, the fourth chapter in the perennial horror series has earned $37.1 million, and it's now guaranteed to be the lowest-grossing entry by a wide margin.
Taken 2 rounded out the Top Five with an estimated $2.56 million, which is a 40 percent decline from last Friday. The action sequel has now earned $112 million, and continues to outpace its predecessor by over $24 million (though that gap is closing quickly).
In eighth place, Alex Cross fell 58 percent to an estimated $1.69 million. That's about on par for Tyler Perry movies, but is a poor pace for a crime thriller that received an "A" CinemaScore. The movie's eight-day total is $16 million, and it will be lucky to close with over $30 million by the end of its run.
Paramount and Nickelodeon's Halloween comedy Fun Size bombed hard with just $1.33 million on Friday. That's worse than I Love You Beth Cooper ($2.1 million) and just slightly higher than Take Me Home Tonight ($1.25 million), both of which are notorious high school comedy debacles. Fun Size could earn around $4 million for the weekend, and will disappear quickly after that.
Somehow, Fun Size wasn't the worst new movie on Friday: that honor belonged to surfing flick Chasing Mavericks, which opened to an atrocious $825,000 at 2,002 theaters. That's one of the worst debuts of the year, and is even lower than distributor 20th Century Fox's September disaster Won't Back Down ($917,768). The movie should make around $2.5 million through Sunday.

Will not be happy, placated or ameliorated until there's apparently Asians playing Asians, Blacks playing Blacks, Latinos playing Latinos etc.
In a way, nintendarth while expanding minority involvement in hollywood would like to set up systems where you could not play ANYTHING other than the race you originate from.
Given the fact that it's real hard to write a screenplay to begin with, to actively go out of one's way to ensure races are effectively and fairly portrayed by the specific races feels unwieldy and strange.
Should there be more minority involvement in hollywood? Absolutely. Is celebration the death of Cloud Atlas the way to go about it?
Not at all.
That's just spiteful and misguided.

Mickey Rooney's roll in Breakfast at Tiffany's certainly qualifies as yellowface, but not simply because he was playing an Asian character. His makeup and behavior exaggerated the farcical, demeaning aspects of the racial stereotype.
If the Asian characters were the only rolls the Caucasian actors were playing in Cloud Atlas, then I'd see your point. But when you are dealing with themes of transcendent love, then it is acceptable and may even be appropriate to suggest that the love transcends ethnicity as easily as it transcends time and space.
Actors act, often playing characters to whom they have no real-life connections. To cite just one example, people who are gay and people who are straight often play people who are straight and people who are gay.
Insisting on like-playing-like handicaps the art of acting and is especially absurd when dealing with a storyline that is set in a 22nd-century Asia that none of us has seen. If we take the "yellowface" accusations to their full extent, then the movie should not only have been cast differently, but it shouldn't have been produced for another 100-plus years.

Not a pretentious art film. Accessible and entertaining. See it if you like drama, action, comedy, sci-fi, romance, thriller all rolled into one. Felt like one of the shortest three hour films I've ever seen. This will develop a following on video once people give it a chance, and it will eventually break free from its reputation as a flop.

is that people on here are happy about that.
Sorry, but when you relish a movie like this flopping, you have no right to ever bad mouth the shit Hollywood puts out. Enjoy your piece of shit watered down remakes and sequels. It's what you deserve for having a miserable taste.
I'm just happy that people like the Wachowskis, Malick, PT Anderson, etc. are still here to make real films.

Its the type of movie you really don't want to bash on, because you know what they were going for and how far out they put themselves, but man its just one hard motherfucking movie to sit through.
I wouldn't call it a bad film by any means, just not one you ever want to see again. I imagine the Blu-ray will make an excellent cure for insomnia.

Coming in blind I could probably understand it if it was something almost universally reviled around these parts, such as the 'Red Dawn' remake or perhaps 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon.' But this--hell, the ONE thing people can agree on is that it's nothing like either of those. I don't know if it's just backlash from the praise it's receiving here and elsewhere (and after this long on the Internet I'm damn sure not discounting that) or so on, but why would you actually want a film that's seemingly exactly opposite to the stuff you've been railing against for however long to actually fail?

I liked it. It didn't change my world or make the hair on the back of my neck stand up - but I liked it.
The editing is really well done, weaving the stories and timeframes together in a seamless way.
Some of the makeup and casting is a little "off", and took me out of the movie.
With that said, I recommend it to people with an open mind and are sick of movies sequels, prequels, remakes, etc...
One thing - when they listed the music credits at the end, they credit one of the songs as being Written by Jack White and Performed by David Hassellhoff. Did I really see that?

I am going to assume (probably wrongly) that most of the people who frequent this site really love movies. It doesn't matter if you agree with the philosophy of Cloud Atlas or not. You are seeing something brave, new, and original - how important is that today?
Before the show I went to started, a trailer for Texas Chainsaw 3D rolled - is this what we want? Support films that advance the art.
I certainly didn't agree philosophically with Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, but I recognize there importance in film history. Of all the movies I have seen in the past few years, I think Cloud Atlas has the best shot of being recognized as a 'masterpiece' in the future. It's that different from anything else out there.

Which, on top of being the usual incoherent doggerel from Harry's keyboard, makes it absolutely worthless.
Can't wait for AICN's excessive coverage of Twilight Breakin' Dawn Part 2: Electric Boogaloo. You know it's coming.

One of the best movies I've ever seen. Too dense and meaningful for the ADD crowd, definitely. And probably too "out there" for American Idol-addicted breeders.
But fuck... what a powerful, chance-taking film.
I'll definitely be going to see it again.
And taking others with me.

Where do I begin with cloud Atlas? What an amazing experience. My mind is racing with many different thoughts heading in all directions. Sort of like the film.
Tom Hanks! Halle Barry! Hugo Weaving! The Story! The Characters! The Action! The Humor! The Special Effects! The Make-up! The Set Design! The Editing! The Science Fiction! The Curse Words! The Heart! The Messages! The Suspense! The Horror! The Sadness! It's all there for us to absorb and experience.
This film is simply put: Amazing and Unforgettable! Having said all that, the film had too much to digest in one viewing! Way too much!
I cannot wait to read the book and watch this at least 2 more times this week!
Never has any film done anything quite like this. All the lead actors convincingly playing 6 different roles across 6 different time periods! It's astonishing!
This film should be nominated for Best Picture.
The one thing I had a little difficulty with was Hank's and Berry's characters in the 106 Winters after the Fall time period and Son-mi 451 from futuristic Korea. Their dialect was, at times, tricky to fully pick up and understand, (a little bit of the Bane effect going on sans any masks being worn) but other than that I found everything intelligible and clear.
The message of this film is what stands out the most to me. That death is just a doorway to something else. And that even if you don't believe that death is a doorway, that our decisions in this life have an effect on countless others in the future. We go through this life of ours for the most part with shortsighted self serving goals. The vast majority of us, including myself, don't really "fight" to upset the "natural order of things" because we are afraid of death and/or persecution, or both. Death, unlike Belief, is something that we gravitate away from, whereas Belief is something that we are drawn to. Like polar opposites that are intertwined; kind of like the swirling lines of the Cloud Atlas logo. I really can't wait to have the time to read Cloud Atlas, but for now I'll just have to suffice with being on cloud nine about this film!

pour them into a super-soaker and spray me in the face with it for 3 hours, it couldn't be a less enjoyable experience than Cloud Atlas. If i were reincarnated 1 zillion-ka-tillion-ba-dillion(cubed) more times, none of my incarnations would tolerate Cloud Atlas for more than 6 rambling boring cock-crushing minutes. I would rather my reincarnated self be a mutilating grandmother-molesting stilted emu human hybrid chained to a bum's asshole than be a person who is down to sit through that galactically unimpressive tsunami of corniness and testicle annihilating random bullshit. Our souls are all connected. So i apologize to everyone on the planet who saw Cloud Atlas with me today. Maybe in my next life everyone on the planet will chain me down, line up and gang rape me as penance....as long as they don't alex-delarge me with cloud atlas playing on the big screen, im chilling.

Sometimes, I wish I was a producer, so I could sit and listen to the pitch for this movie and then stand up and look away, out the window, hands on my desk and say -You want 100 million for this?-
-About that, yes.-
-And it's got science fiction.-
-Yes.-
-3D?-
-Well no.-
-Ok. So - it's for kids?-
-Um, no.-
-And it's 3 hours long?-
-Yes.-
-And it's a movie about philosophy and life, while at the same time being about space ships and things that don't exist in a magical made-up future?-
-Uh.-
-And the same actors play multiple roles - in an era where audeinces in America can't remember the name of the main character for an entire 80 minute movie and think PAYBACK is about a guy named PAYBACK?-
-Well, that's Homer Simpson, ma'am.-
-And he's not the typical American?-
-Well ...-
-Okay, here's the deal. You can make your movie. For 10 million dollars. 10 million. No more than that. Because that's how much it's going to bring in. About 10 million dollars. it's going to flop so very hard, but there are about 10 million dollars worth of people who will see your peurilistic musings as high art. So, take it or leave it. 10 million. Maybe 15 if I get the sense the money will be all on screen and the actors you select work for scale or for free. Now get the hell out of my office.-

Easily one of the best films of the year, this is a long and complex look at the ripples that individual people create throughout history. On the surface or in the trailers it appears to be about reincarnated souls, played by the same actors in different stories, but this isn't the case at all. Some have called it impenetrable like The Fountain or Tree of Life, but it's not layers deep, rather it's sprawling wide. The plots don't converge like a heist movie through time, they stay parallel and let you find the significance for yourself. Even the clear plot connections between times aren't so critical to the story as the simple, clear facts and themes that the characters portray and speak aloud.
The concept of immortality through will and ego is written clear as day in every thread in the web. More than anything it's about the things we leave behind, about legacies good and bad, resounding and long lives or totally, instantly silenced. No mumbo jumbo about karma or souls or reincarnation beyond what the characters themselves believe. No morality beyond what the characters decide for themselves. There's far more to say that "The weak are meat and the strong do eat" than any sentimental notions otherwise. All subject to the viewer of course, karma fans will surely find something to justify themselves and believers in souls could easily read the recurring actors as such. I found it completely rewarding without that. The only unquestionable, blatant claim of the film is that in any time and any body, Hugo Weaving is a really nasty fucker.
I've seen objections to the race changing and even gender swapping of actors. They're unfounded. This is not a minstrel show. It's simply a necessity for having the same actors showing up in different places and times. Asians play white folks, white folks play asians, men play women, women play men, a dozen races and gender roles are depicted and none for laughs or mockery, all simply as a world with the same faces becoming different lives. You'd have to be hunting for a fight to pick one with this highly multicultural feast.
As for the experience of the film, it's a real roller coaster that takes truly surprising turns. Vast future revolutions explode across the screen but a stray conversation between two people amid the chaos stands out above it all. Critical life moments hit characters at the most astonishing, emotional times but seem meaningless compared to the book that was propping up a short leg on their bed. This film could have been a total disaster, but the 6 plotlines are expertly handled at all times, this is a grand masterpiece of editing that ranks as the Wachowski's most mature and intelligent project and Tykwer's second only to Perfume. These are the Wachowskis that made V for Vendetta, not Matrix and Speed Racer. Though there might be a dash of both in there for those who want them.
At almost 3 hours, it never feels long. You have to wade slowly into it rather than diving in but that's not a flaw. Once the water starts moving it never slows down for an instant. It's a fun movie, like 6 R-Rated Pixar films woven into one. Emotionally resonant, clever, funny and surprisingly brutal. Humanity is depicted at its best and worst in every story. Often worse, and that makes the best all the more inspiring. And it is a truly inspiring film.
A lays potato chip of a movie. Impossible to see just once, so go get started!

Reviews are everything from "moving" to "a complete mess". It bombs at the box office. Roger Ebert says "It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma".
I know a little about films, and I'm of the opinion that you should be able to describe your movie in a few sentences. No one seems to be able to do that here. Also, "Religions will be formed over this movie"? No way am I joining a religion involving the guys who crapped out The Matrix sequels.

The entire point of the story is Pantheism: that everything, and everyone, is connected across all time and space.
Now, I personally think that's a worn-out and specious theme, but it's one that's been revisited time and again for FUCKING MILLENNIA.
And the way you'd visually represent such a theme is to have the same actor play multiple characters in different time periods in the narrative.
The entire fact that you're concerned about the race of the actors playing the different roles demonstrates that you don't understand the story's theme. They could just as well title the movie NINTENDARTH IS TRAPPED IN PAROCHIAL ILLUSIONS.
It's one thing to disagree with the theme. I also tend to disparage just about anything that smacks of hokey reincarnation stories. But it's completely asinine to call the theme racist, when implicit in the theme is the claim that RACE IS AN ILLUSION. It just makes you look like a half-educated provincial dope.

...than some cunty activist who freaks out that a film about the unity of the human experience doesn't kowtow to his petty grievance whining.
It's pathetic enough when you see Identity activists fighting the last war even when the issue is semi-plausible.
When they go after people who are themselves advancing an anti-racist theme, because it's *just not sensitive enough* to their precious little feelings, it really becomes a disgrace.
The film was doomed to failure anyway, as anyone would realize by reading the Amazon description of the novel and checking out the reported budget. But wishing it failure because *Wah! There aren't enough opportunities for Asian male actors here! Wah!* makes you a fucking joke and clown in my book.

First of all, the make-up is AWFUL. I didn't bother to see who did it, but it's bad. Having the same actors play all of these different roles, regardless of race or gender, was a bad idea, and it doesn't even serve the plot because there are no real connections between these "lives" other than the fact that the same actor is playing them. There are other mechanisms they could have used to show this, without resulting to the absolutely terrible make-up.
Secondly, it's just not a very good movie. It's all over the place, and the supposedly profound reveal at the end falls flat. All through the movie I kept thinking that this had better have one HELL of an ending, and it never came. It's not as bad as Prometheus, but someone needed to step in here and tell these pretentious directors that this shit was stupid. I am a HUGE fan of the Fountain, so I was ready for anything here, it's just not very good.

Is a work of art.
It's even a work of high art.
As such, it's going to generate a deeply divided movie going experience.
Some will hate it.
Others will love it.
I was deeply affected by it.
I'm going to see it a second time on November 11th.
This is the best film of the year, although it will not be appreciated for some time to come.
Like all works of High Art, it cannot be appreciated without some distance.
The score will not leave me alone
IronHelix - I respectfully disagree. The makeup work is phenomenal.
I cannot really review it, until I see it again. But by god, that was a fine movie.

When you know everything that's going to happen, you can see that they played around with all sorts of little foreshadowing that you really wouldn't remember by the time an event happens. And there are just little things here and there that connect the stories.
As to the makeup, yes some times it's horrible (usually when trying to make someone look older), but some times it's amazing. And both times I saw it at the theater, people were thrown for a loop by the end-credits (make sure you stick around, just after the first text credits section is something VERY worth watching).
For people playing the "race" card, why? The main story people are talking about takes place in Korea. Why shouldn't most people look asian there? OK, the asian makeup wasn't the best, but you could see what they were going for (personally I had it settled in my mind that by then maybe people have evolved a little bit to look kinda weird).

I have to agree with another commenter here - why is no one applauding David Mitchell who wrote the book. It was Man Booker nominated, for goodness sake! It was - and use Harry's analogy - the springboard for the film which takes all the themes and characters and places them on the screen for all those who are too lazy or inept to read a 600+ page book. Twyker and the Wachowskis didn't write Cloud Atlas - they adapted it for the screen. And while I won't take credit from them for transforming a difficult book into what appears to be a stunning film that still has the spirit of the novel at its heart I would like to see some love go out to David Mitchell whose idea this whole story was in the first place.

Any one else find that to be one of the more incoherent reviews the big guy has written in quite some time? That paragraph about the Olympic diver didn't make a lick of sense. Then he follows it with this laughable connection of sentences. "That's Cloud Atlas. It isn't at all like that paragraph..." Well which is it Harry?

John Carter ? Not hardly. Try to be a little more creative with your venom directed towards everyone and everything.
Saw it last night. A wonderful movie. And for those who don't want to strain their little head - there was also a few explosions and some Blood.

Maybe im retarded or something, i saw it last monday and my cousin and I walked out thinking nothing was really connected. The Cloud atlas Sextet wasnt even really connected to but two lives.
And as for Robert Frobisher his life never ended up re-connecting with Sixsmith. his qoute of believing in a place that he will be waiting for him never came to be! their lives ended up being stalemates
I was looking forward mostly to The Most Distant Future timeline with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. Until i thought either again I was retarded or could nobody understand a lick of what tom hanks or anyone was really saying. All i could understand was "
true true" and whats up with Agent Smith Mad Hatter guy, he comes in and out of scenes almost like a sickness to tom hanks head. tells tom hanks he just wants a peice of ass and kill her, AD THEM BOOM! He's gone forever!.
I did on the otherhand love the story of Timothy Cavendish I thought this was the only story that had a sense of where the character had been, where he was, and where is was going. this story & Adam Ewings was the only story I actually cared about about the character. all the other storys felt empty and rushed and didnt give you any real reason to care!
I found myself during this movie feeling excited, bored, entertained, bored, let down, confused, excited again through out the whole movie and then walking out i was let down thinking this is not the movie i was so excited to see!
AND WHAT THE HELL WAS TOM HANKS SAYING IN THE DISTANT FUTURE!!!!!

It was completely obvious who everyone was. It was extraordinarily distracting. Sometimes it sank to the level of an absurd joke, like seeing Hugo Weaving made up to appear Asian. Or Doona Bae as a Southern belle.
I liked the movie. I will always root for the Wachowskis to blow my mind. The acting was, at times, spectacular. And I admire and respect what they tried to achieve.
Filmmakers should take a lesson from this movie: Makeup isn't there yet. We all want it to be, but it's just not. Tread carefully.

The links weren't always obvious. For example, in the future, the girls sang the Cloud Atlas Sextet during their ceremony, and I'm pretty sure it was playing in their diner as well (different instruments). And the journal that was being written on the boat was halway read by Frobisher (the composer guy), and I think his letter got Sixsmith to read the whole thing.
If you figure that everyone with the comet birthmark on them was the same soul, then Frobisher *did* meet up with Sixsmith again.
As for the far-future lingo, I guess you just have to get used to it. I couldn't for the life of me understand it at first, but as the movie along I figured more of it out. It's just all slang. And the "Agent Smith Mad Hatter Guy" was the devil, "Old Georgie himself", tempting Tom Hanks' character.

You're an idiot. Also, if you feel the need to bash a movie this vehemently (and keep in mind, this is just a movie and nothing more) then you've got nothing else in your life to be mad about. Think about that. You shouldn't care this much. Get yourself laid and be quiet for awhile.

No one gives a shit about the actor's make-up. Get that through your head. The only people who do are the ones who can't see that it actually served the film and are determined to make a racial issue out of it. Those people are also referred to as idiots.

over the bombing of this movie. This is payback for Inception and Tree of Life and The Fountain. Pretentious sci-fi flicks needs to die. And those that watch them need to commit massive suicide. I hate you all.

I've said it before - I love how boxofficemojo.com presents the raw, unpleasant facts for geeks to digest.
Eat it & Enjoy.
from boxofficemojo.com:
Cloud Atlas had the highest debut among this weekend's newcomers with an estimated $9.4 million from 2,008 theaters. That's the lowest nationwide launch ever for the Wachowski siblings (who co-directed with Tom Tykwer), and it's also the worst nationwide opening for star Tom Hanks since 1996's That Thing You Do! At least the movie nearly matched The Fountain's $10.1 million total, though that's really not a ringing endorsement.
This is a disappointing, but not surprising, opening for Cloud Atlas. With six thinly-connected stories set in different time periods, the marketing was never able to convey an actual story, which is the most fundamental part of selling a movie. The insane runtime (164 minutes) was also likely a deterrent for casual moviegoers, while the middling reviews (62 percent on Rotten Tomatoes) weren't good enough to convince cinephiles to check it out. The movie could save some face overseas, where its strong visuals and internationally recognizable cast will help a lot, but it's still going to be a long road to profitability for this $100 million epic.

The U.S. box-office is in need of a jolt right now as several newcomers were dead on arrival. The Wachowski's expensive "Cloud Atlas", the horror sequel "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D", the Victoria Justice teen comedy "Fun Size", and the surfing drama "Chasing Mavericks" all under performed with the first two earning under $10 million while the latter two didn't even crack the Top Ten.

but the movie was made for the sake of telling the story. and if you think Tom Hanks starred in this movie for money or fame then you haven't seen the movie.
not everyone is blindly in love with money. there are some artists in the world and they make art for the sake of expression and exploration.

Because they should have learned their lesson YEARS ago, it doesn't work. AICN means SHIT nowadays. It's just, behind the scenes pic, review, behind the scenes pic, something stolen from latino review days late, behind the scenes pic, lousy interview, Harry being a fat fuck, behind the scenes pic, some old movie review...

Another different thing is making a SHITLOAD of money. They want to MAXIMIZE profits, not make enough money to pay production costs. And one of their bets was paying AICN to praise this film. And it failed.

...and yet a MONTH later in release, and it STILL beat this overbloated mess of a movie. Hotel Transylvania was actually a great kids movie, and didn't get the drubbing it got here. Guess they didn't pay aicn to promote it like th Cloud Atlas folks did.

Or for that matter, Austin Powers?
Do people also remember how Titanic initially performed at the Box Office?
Truth of the matter is, those who obsessively follow BO totals as a means of deciding what movies should be made are in the wrong business. Any aesthetic business is going to suffer if you just try to recapture every success mechanically.
I think Cloud Atlas will do just fine in the long run, and overseas over time.
As for Racebending?
If there was ever a more inappropriate target... first, the point was to have the same actors playing different people throughout time. Doona Bae and Jim Sturgess play, in the first time period, two white people, for which Doona Bae needed special make-up. It's reversed in the Neo Seoul time period, with Doona Bae playing the race of her birth, and Jim Sturgess playing a Korean by means of make-up. We can debate the quality of the makeup (in some case it's astounding how unrecognizeable the original actor or actress is. In others, well. No, it's too obvious.), but to assert that the intentions are to deprive Asians of good roles is ludicrous. After all, one of the best, most moving roles goes to Doona Bae.
Second, this movie is powerful in its attack on racism, sexism, and prejudice in general. The controversy seems to me about avenging the wrongs of other movies that made up white actors to look asian without the Cloud Atlas' internal reason for doing so. The Cloud Atlas should not have to pay for decades of prejudicial exclusion of asians from asian roles, especially given the fact that it cast an asian woman in the most sympathetic and humane character.

It will hold up to repeat views, and I've thought about it many times after seeing it.
Those complaining about make-up: it's intentional, and I liked it. Can you honestly say that everyone on the film didn't understand that the make-up wasn't supposed to be lifelike? It's intentional.
Tru-tru.

It's an ultimate romantic gesture.
It was the day my dad apparently asked my mom to marry him.
Since this film is principally preoccupied with love and our various forms of it, I thought it a highly appropriate date to take her out to see this particular film.

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
FANBOI ALERT! FANBOI ALERT! FANBOI ALERT!
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
You're ten shades of fucking fool if you think the shitty makeup was intentional. If they could have realistically made actor X look like race Y, they would have done it in a heartbeat.
Instead, you got what they could afford given the budget constraints.
They *MIGHT* win the Oscar for the editing, they're almost a shoe-in to win the Razzie for that awful make-up. Probably the worst was Tom Hanks in the very first scene with the eye makeup for the 'scar'. It was so distracting it almost pulled me out of the movie then and there. Thats not to say there weren't some instances of good makeup in the film, but on the whole it was horrid.

I was taken back to "I'm Not There" which also juggled 5-6 storylines (that was in fact, one big story) but did it in a leaner and more effective manner.
It also packed more of an emotional punch. Whereas, Cloud Atlas left me pretty cold.

I remember quite well each and every example you mention. And not sure what you mean by Titanic, it was #1 for 16 straight weeks and tended to defy the norm in that it didn't halve its take every week, but constantly stayed afloat(har har) at like $30 million per week.
Austin Powers iirc performed well enough to make its money back and pulled around $50 million, but got a lot of traction on video. The second movie is oft-sited as the start of the understanding that you could build a franchise such that the second or third movie could build upon the first's momentum because the product was no longer an unknown quantity. They'll try to do something similar with Kick-Ass 2 and have a big opening when it arrives.
But the truth of the matter is, we follow the box office because it dictates what type of movies get made. If you can't put butts in seats and find some way to cover the money you were given to make the film, you will not make many films. It really is as simple as that. People aren't in the business of losing money in the name of art. They just aren't. If only because they won't have money for very long doing that.
Even the artsy-fartsy directors, if you watch how their budgets and productions are structured.. still do tend to make money at the end of the day.

I will only defend AL:VH for being a very guilty pleasure. It's not a great movie by any means, but it is fun to watch. Anyone who outright complains about it didn't bother reading the book, and, I guess they expected MORE from a movie with this kind of a title? Please.

would top "The Master" this year but this movie is like nothing ever committed to celluloid before. I loved every story on their own merit but the juxtaposition of each tale makes the film a rare work of art that is both extremely entertaining and profound in its message. It's the film of the year and it's a shame that many critics are dismissing it and that the masses are not embracing it.

Thanks for the explanation.
11/11 is meaningful to me too, but in a "found footage" sort of way.
I think I'll pencil in my second viewing of Cloud Atlas on the same date, it just feels right.
I wrote a small review to my family after seeing Cloud Atlas, I've posted it below, if anyone is interested:
Having just finished watching Cloud Atlas, the first thing I wanted to do was have a conversation about it with the people I love and the people that love me, even if those people haven't watched the movie yet. I imagined a conversation with Stacy, about life, love, choices, religion; topics we've discussed prior and conversations that I know are meaningful to both of us. Watching Cloud Atlas was like watching one of the conversations we've had, but fully realized in the cinematic world, with great actors, sweeping camera angles, dynamic editing and amazing music. About halfway through the movie, I realized it wasn't as good as I was hoping for it to be. I also easily realized that it isn't a movie for everybody, but I am who I am mainly because of the family unit that raised me; Dad, Mom and Stacy, and if I am who I am because of them and can see so clearly the message being stated through this ambitious film, why wouldn't those same people glean the same understanding of the movie I have?
I called Stacy first, no answer. I called Mom, she was tired, but we spoke. I told her I had just watched Cloud Atlas. Her response? "Oh, I heard it was terrible, the reviewer said she needed a guide to get through it; she didn't understand it at all?"
Hearing that, I almost threw-up, literally.
As I said, halfway through the movie, I realized it wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Then the last hour of the movie started and by the final 20 minutes, I knew I was watching something special, something that would be celebrated, even if not immediately and something that will live a much longer life than ours. I can foresee a day in the future, 150 years from now, when "movies" are passe, they aren't made anymore, not really watched, but Cloud Atlas remains. It speaks directly to humanity and as long as there are humans in the Universe, Cloud Atlas will have a role in communicating to them. That, makes it spectacular. To call it "terrible" is like pissing on Leonardo Da Vinci's grave and saying everything he left behind to humanity is worthless, pointless and junk. That's how absurd a comment it is.
In hopes of leaving you two with a more positive image of Cloud Atlas, to the point that you will want to see the movie for yourselves, I have added a few comments from a few different reviewers that I follow. Please read them and hopefully something will trigger inside of you that makes you want to seek out this movie and enjoy it. To hear that it is "terrible and confusing," wouldn't enthuse me to invest any time into it, so hopefully the following can reverse that:
(Add your own positive review here)
-Hollywood Pulse

I see most of the movies that come out in theaters, because I pay a monthly fee to see as many movies as I want. And I didn't see a single trailer until two weeks ago (when I saw the trailer, I thought "Wow, I must see that! Wait, out in only two weeks??") I've yet to see a commercial. I haven't seen any websites ads for it or anyone talking about it until after its release. When I saw it was showing in IMAX, I was surprised, and wondered what about it could benefit from IMAX (because there had been no promotions talking about the beautiful imagery that occasionally shows up).
For a $100 million budget movie, Cloud Atlas got way too little promotion. Which sucks because it's my favorite movie of the year so far.

Reloaded and (mainly) Revolutions drove the nail into that coffin. People still argue about the final two movies. Hell look at the discussion from that article on here the other day. They pretty much took what was so cool about the first movie, and shat all over the mythology of "The One" in the next two. The series ended with pretty much the world still in shambles, and nothing more than an agreement of peace that the machines could change their minds about anytime they wanted, and finish obliterating Zion. Oh, and all the heroes died. Yeah, lets kill Neo like a Christ-like savior. Let's give Trinity a 10 minute literally talking-to-her-death scene. Real uplifting, eh? Unless they call the next one Matrix Rebooted, and find the coolness factor that was the original Matrix, I'll pass. Oh, and from what I've read, in the Matrix Online MMO that failed, Morpheus was killed by the machines for demanding Neo's body back. So no happy ending in any way shape or form for anyone in the movie.

Imagine you’re at the Olympics. An unassuming diver that represented a country you didn’t necessarily root for or supported took the platform. The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live. It was captured by all the cameras – and everyone saw something different, spectacular and transcendently significant that leads them to leading a better life.

Imagine you’re at the Olympics. An unassuming diver that represented a country you didn’t necessarily root for or supported took the platform. The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live. It was captured by all the cameras – and everyone saw something different, spectacular and transcendently significant that leads them to leading a better life.

Harry Knowles, October, 2012, writes:
----------
Harry Knowles, AICN, October 2012 states:
"Imagine you’re at the Olympics. An unassuming diver that represented a country you didn’t necessarily root for or supported took the platform. The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live. It was captured by all the cameras – and everyone saw something different, spectacular and transcendently significant that leads them to leading a better life.
---------------------
The riddle is this: What substance was Harry smoking/injecting, when we wrote that?
Solve this for me, and my testicle and bank account is yours.

Harry Knowles, October, 2012, writes:
---------------------
Imagine you’re at the Olympics. An unassuming diver that represented a country you didn’t necessarily root for or supported took the platform. The diver was about to climb the long ladder to the top, when this athlete is suddenly in the air mid dive spinning like a top with perfect form, colors begin spilling out of them, the diver appears at the top of the board, they’re now seemingly representing another country, perhaps yours this time, they’re female and while the phasing image of the first diver is spinning the colors continue to explode from that point as the diver launches upwards rocketing through a roof that explodes into pedals of beautiful flowers that cascade Busby Berkeley style as if on rotating ethereal stages when suddenly you’re nursing from your mother as an infant and feel more complete and warm and connected, the blink reveals the diver, now the original entering the water without a splash, perfect. And you saw this live. It was captured by all the cameras – and everyone saw something different, spectacular and transcendently significant that leads them to leading a better life.
----------------------
The riddle is this: What substance was Harry smoking/injecting, when we wrote that?
Solve this for me, and my testicle and bank account is yours.

I've been coming to this site since day one, and Harry's writing has gone from bad to awful. I normally don't comment on his reviews, but that paragraph about the Olympic divers was the most incoherent, ridiculous piece of writing I have yet to see from him.

What he's saying is basically representing a symbolic image in his mind of what CLOUD ATLAS -did- to him, even though the movie itself doesn't resemble the symbols he used.
He's suggesting the experience of walking into the theater to see a movie that - like an Olympic diver - is reaching for greatness. However, in this case, the film - represented by the diver - is one that Harry wasn't really clamoring to see the way he was anxiously awaiting, say, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.
Before he knows it, watching CLOUD ATLAS, he feels the way someone might feel watching a diver they weren't really too excited to see pulling off some kind of amazing turns and tricks.
Sort of - okay, here's a diver. Whatev-... WHOAH! Did I just see a diver do THAT? And he wasn't even an anticipated diver everyone was talking about. It's just - out of nowhere - the most amazing dive.
And then Harry is explaining that the film changes into something totally different, like another diver taking the platform
Just as a flashbulb puts spots in front of your eyes, the image of the first diver (the first part of CLOUD ATLAS) is imprinted on Harry's -vision- in his mind's eye.
Then, this second diver does something totally different from the first, while the -ghost image- of thre first diver is still there, so the two sort of blend together - both individual, both unique, both amazing, but combining into something new by virtue of being two images of two amazing divers superimposed on each other. He's making this symbolic of how he felt when CLOUD ATLAS changed the scene on him, going in a different direction, while he was still reflecting on the first part in his mind's eye. And then that happened, he's saying, over and over again throughout the film.
Finally, he's saying that the OVERALL experience of all of those different superimposed images coming together form a warm and inviting mental space for him, where he feels like he's standing in a field of rose petals fluttering around like swimmers in a Busby Berkley musical, a lot of people's individual effort combining to make a tapestry the way Berkley's swimmers formed images by working together to make a single tapestry.
In the part you cut out, he ends this by saying CLOUD ATLAS isn't LIKE those images he's using as symbols, but the image he's describing evokes the SINGULAR EXPERIENCE he had coming into something where he wasn't expecting much and was treated to a cavalcade of images and concepts working together like shadow puppets and rose petals, calming and embracing and inviting.
Am I right, Harry?

"Cloud Atlas" flopped at the box office over the weekend. The highly anticipated star-packed film did not perform as expected during its opening weekend. Ben Affleck's film, "Argo," did extremely well and was number one at the box office. On Oct. 28, Huffington Post reported that the $100 million movie known as "Cloud Atlas" only made $9.4 million this weekend. "Argo" was a smash, raking in $12.4 million in its third week.
"Argo" has been a huge success so far. It has made over $60 million in the three weeks that it has been in theaters. Tom Hanks and Halle Berry could not compete even with "Hotel Transylvania," which brought in $9.5 million in its fifth week in theaters.
"Cloud Atlas'" box office flop is somewhat surprising given the hype surrounding the film. The movie is an adaptation of David Mitchell's novel by the same title. Even Mitchell, however, didn't think that the book would translate well in to film. The movie fell flat indeed, something that some critics weren't surprised about.
"Cloud Atlas" trailer
Video: "Cloud Atlas" trailer
The movie got mixed reviews and while some people couldn't wait to check it out, others based their decision not to see it by the television previews. For some reason, the hype behind the film ended up being bigger than the film itself. Again, it's not often this happens when people like Tom Hanks and Halle Berry are the main characters.
While "Cloud Atlas" flopped, it certainly wasn't the worst film in the theaters. Gerard Butler's "Chasing Mavericks," made just over $2 million. Ouch.

http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/tom-hanks-cloud-atlas-box-office-flop/
Tom Hanks Cloud Atlas box office: One of Hanks’ weakest (wide-release) debuts ever
Featuring Academy Award winners Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, and Jim Broadbent (plus Hugh Grant), and directed by The Matrix‘s Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, and Perfume: The Story of a Murderer‘s Tom Tykwer, Cloud Atlas opened below expectations in North America this pre-Halloween weekend, Oct. 26-28. (Photo: Tom Hanks Cloud Atlas.)
Looking at Friday grosses, Cloud Atlas seemed poised to take in somewhere between $11-12m. However, according to Warner Bros. estimates reported at Box Office Mojo, by Sunday night the time-bending, mind-bending drama will have collected a meager $9.4m at 2,008 locations (including 105 IMAX screens), averaging only $4,681 per theater. If studio estimates are accurate, Cloud Atlas will be trailing not only Ben Affleck’s political thriller Argo (with a less-than-expected $12.35m, -25% from last weekend), but also Sony Pictures’ Hotel Transylvania ($9.5m).
Why did Cloud Atlas underperform?
Why did Cloud Atlas underperform? Well, one could blame everything from Hurricane Sandy and Frankenstorm to Halloween costume parties and the just-as-circus-like U.S. presidential election. But chances are that the real culprit was not bad weather or Mitt Romney, but weak word of mouth for a movie with a disjointed plotline — if it can be called that.
For instance, Cloud Atlas, which has a mediocre C+ CinemaScore, was up only (an estimated) 9% on Saturday. For comparison’s sake: Argo was up 35% while Liam Neeson’s critically lambasted thriller Taken 2 was up 33%. Even Tyler Perry’s box-office bomb Alex Cross was up 37% on Saturday. In fact, only two movies had worse Friday-to-Saturday percentage increases (or decrease) than Cloud Atlas: new entries Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (down 23%) and Chasing Mavericks (the Gerard Butler bomb was up a minuscule 4%).
Cloud Atlas‘ originally estimated $12m first-weekend take wouldn’t have been bad at all for something as unusual as the Tykwer / Wachowski Starship effort. But once again, if studio estimates are correct, $9.4m is an undeniably poor North American start for a movie that cost a reported $102m (not including marketing / distribution expenses).
On the positive side, on its first weekend out Cloud Atlas grossed nearly as much as Darren Aronofsky / Hugh Jackman / Rachel Weisz’s similarly framed The Fountain, which brought in $10.14m ($12.4m adjusted for inflation) during its entire run in 2006. Having said that, since Cloud Atlas could theoretically end its domestic run with less than $20m, its only chance of at least matching its production budget at the box office is the international market. In the coming months, the Tykwer / Wachowski Starship movie is going to be slowly rolled out around the world.
Playing it safe, Warner Bros. acquired the domestic rights to the independently financed Cloud Atlas for a reported $15m. Focus Features International will handle (at least some) foreign territories.
Cloud Atlas: One of Tom Hanks’ worst opening-weekend box-office performers
Cloud Atlas has scored one of Tom Hanks’ weakest (wide-release) first-weekend grosses (adjusted for inflation) since the beginning of his movie career in the early ’80s. If studio estimates are accurate, Cloud Atlas trailed not only the Hanks / Julia Roberts summer 2011 flop Larry Crowne‘s $13.09m, but also the modest performer Charlie Wilson’s War ($9.65m). In fact, one has to go back all the way to 1990′s The Bonfire of the Vanities‘ ($4.21m, or approx. $8m adjusted) to find a weaker Tom Hanks wide-release debut.
The only two other Tom Hanks movies to suffer lower opening-weekend grosses than Cloud Atlas in the last (almost) three decades are the family drama Nothing in Common (1986, approx. $7m adjusted) and the poorly received comedy remake The Man with One Red Shoe (1985, approx. $7m adjusted). True, both had shorter running times (and more daily showings) than Cloud Atlas; however, both were screened at about 1,000 fewer locations as well. (The number of available seats — movie-theater sizes have changed dramatically in the last thirty years — is, of course, unknown.)
Cloud Atlas currently has a mediocre 40% approval rating and 6/10 average among Rotten Tomatoes‘ top critics.
Note: Considering that Cloud Atlas was only $100,000 behind Hotel Transylvania, it’s possible that the two movies may have their placements on the domestic box-office chart switched around when weekend actuals are released on Monday.
Read more: http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/tom-hanks-cloud-atlas-box-office-flop/#ixzz2AlJQaiO2

Especially because its numbers cratered. Now they'll have another movie they can point at to try to stroke their ego as to being 'cultured' and what not.
If the movie had made $750 million, they'd have slagged off on it as anything the public actually liked, must be trash.
But really, all they're doing when they point out a movie such as this is illustrating their absurdity. This type of movie does not work at the box office on its own merits. Its long, its slow, and it provides 6 seperate threads to follow without providing a stabilizing narrative base with which to tell the overall story.
It should be no surprise it failed, the only surprise is how they got the budget they did. I definately applaud them for trying something new and what not.. but as i've always said.. nobody wants originality, it tends to be dreadfully boring to most people.

It's like the same people who go on about how the Lord of the Rings isn't a faithful adaptation, and how they cut out Tom Bombadil and other things. Yeah, lets go with the 228 minute version of Fellowship, and add all that back in. Ok, so now we have another hour, and a sequence that brings the film to a screeching halt for about 35 minutes while we introduce you to Tom Bombadil. There's a reason they call things "adaptations". Because the boring and pointless stuff isn't always necessary. I will give Cloud Atlas credit for trying something different, however I feel adapting the book itself was one of those things that was really unfilmable. Same goes for Watchmen. They had good intentions, but the end result was less than stellar.

I honestly loved this film. Its amazing acting performances and interconnected storyline into the far future was some of the best science fiction I've ever seen on film.
Bravo, Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer!
Can't wait to see it again.

Because, honestly, I could give a fuck whether whether the film tanked or not. It was brave, kickass film that years from now will be revered the way other films that tanked (The Thing, Blade Runner) are regarded.
Flame me if you want for having this opinion, but I think I'm justified.

Harry The Contrarian strikes again, this movie wasn't awful but was far from great or even good, it's kinda boring some of the time, the really bad makeup jolted me out of the story lines and the "Future speak" Tom Hanks uses in the future segment was unintentionally hilarious and the movie was really just hamfisted overall in its presentation.

Couldn't connect with any storyline or character because so little time was spent on most of them, and none of them were particularly interesting. There might have been a quirky British comedy in the "old folks / asylum" storyline, somewhere...otherwise, no. The far future Hanks/Berry storyline was like watching Waterworld or something. The makeup throughout the film was immensely distracting and never convincing. It was a bold experiment, but it fell flat on its face. The Wachowski cache in Hollywood is sure to start waning fast, after this bomb.

Harry and Kidd both gave this film positive reviews. My issue?
I rarely, if ever, agree with Harry about anything.
BUT...
I almost always agree with Kidd.
So... damn, it's like my world just exploded.
Considering I think everything the Wachowskis have done (except the first 2 Matrix films) has been crap...
Not sure I'm going to waste time on this one. I certainly didn't waste time on this review (reading it word for word, I mean).
This is easily one of Harry's worst written, most incomprehensible "reviews" ever. Ugh.

Consider my mind fucked by what i just saw. Definitely an interesting film to dissect for more mature audiences. I enjoyed it. Some foolish parents brought their kids in thinking it was the next harry potter. Aw well i saw some crazy shit as a kid... the film reminded me of a lot of crazy anime, even haiyo miyazakis movies. If you actually watch a lot of anime thats how quitfe a few of them are done, disjointed and random with moments of crazy action that seem to overwhelm the story. I dare say they snuck a live action anime into theaters once again.
7 out of ten

I liked it, but don't really have any interest to see it again.
But am I the only one who found the fabricant subplot to be pretty fucking stupid? Maybe I just needed to completely trow away any expectation of logic, but what the hell? In what kind of world is that shit even believable?
Furthermore, that part of the movie was far too bogged down by bullshit Matrix-style action. Do we really need to see them get caught AGAIN just so they can throw in some cool expensive action scenes only for them to escape again? Leave that shit out. This isn't a fucking action movie, it didn't need to get cluttered up with dumb Matrix-style ass-kicking that seems to only be there to satisfy the people who wandered into the movie expecting shit to get blown up.

It's the eastern philosophies of karma and reincarnation dumbed down for an American audience with pretty colors, spaceships, blood splatters and sex to keep their attention. And the music playing in the background for the last 2 hours is as though the movie is about to end....but it just keeps going on and on and on.

Harry is a douchebag. How can anyone enjoy this pretentious pile of rubbish? Harry did. Oh yeah, he thought THE DARK KNIGHT RISES was awful. Consider the source. Harry is a phoney Hollywood ass-kisser. Moron.

It wasn't a BAD movie, per se, but there was really nothing memorable about it.
Each of the six stories, when taken individually, was nothing special. Each story was a pretty basic, paint-by-numbers, cliched story, derivative of other better movies or stories.
Mashing them together into one movie doesn't make each story any more compelling. It was nothing more than a gimmick.
At best, I'd say the flick was pretty conventional and uninspired. At worst, I'd say it was cliched and derivative.
The Fountain is a FAR superior take on the same sort of story structure. By far.

None of the six stories have ANYTHING to do with each other, except for sometimes a couple of little setting details that are ENTIRELY inconsequential to the story.
Considering that the trailers make a big point of saying that EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED, it was remarkable just how LITTLE WAS CONNECTED.
When actors played different characters, I expected the different characters to be related or connected in SOME way. They rarely were, and then only in a superficial way.
The multiple-roles gimmick was much better done by Peter Sellers, or by the characters in O Lucky Man. At least in those movies the multiple roles had a purpose.
Plus, each of the six stories totally reminded me WAY too much of other, better movies/stories (Mrs. Caldicot's Cabbage War, Soylent Green, Brave New World, The China Syndrome, The Fountain, The Red Violin, etc...)

This quote sums up this movie and its failure to reach the average moviegoer
.... And for what, nothing you do will change anything. You're just one drop in a limitless ocean.
... What is an ocean, but a multitude of drops
This movie is a drop of originality in a world of remakes. Embrace the good ones when they come

Not in a good way. It was part Matrix, part Bladerunner, part Waterworld, part Master & Commander, part some Merchant-Ivory romance. Lazy filmmaking. Rather than create a unique vision for each segment, they just cribbed from Hollywood filmic shorthand.

Caught it last Saturday in a sold out screening, with an audience spilled over from Skyfall. Interestingly, everyone stayed put during the credits, make of that what you will, but here is an experiment in independent filmmaking as ambitious as you'll likely ever see.
<BR>
True, to the detractors’ perceptions, trademark Wachowski anime-isms are indeed on display, and the flick is an homage-heavy pastiche of movie in-jokes. True, at times, I felt I was watching The Fountain meets The Hours or what that Terrence Malick-directed Star Wars would look like. Other times, I was wondering if any of these six stories were going anywhere at all.
<BR>
However, in the end, taking the beauty of the visuals with the themes of Karma and causality of Run Lola Run, and those of fascism, trans-humanism and revolution, a la Matrices and V- I found it to all be a pretty rewarding Saturday night at the movies- like viewing a little miniature adventure film festival.
<BR>
For those who didn't get the map, and claim that the stories are not connected: ***SPOILERS AHEAD, TURN BACK YE VIRGIN MOVIE-GOER!***The "The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing" in 1849 inspire doomed musician Robert Frobisher and his "Letters from Zedelghem" whose death in 1936 will forever haunt his lover, Rufus Sixsmith, who in 1973, finds courage to lay his life on the line for San Francisco investigative reporter Luisa Rey, whose young neighbor, Javier Gomez, later writes about her adventure in the manuscript "Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery," which, after its submission in 2012 to an English publisher, inspires courage during "The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish," a true tale which is then made into a Hollywood movie starring Tom Hanks, which is then viewed by two fabricants in Neo Seoul 2144, inspiring them to rebellion, which ultimately goes viral and becomes the basis for a global revolution and various religious sects, as foretold in "An Orison of Sonmi~451," the true true of which is ultimately revealed to Zachry in 2321 during his tale of "Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After," during which he overcomes his fear in order to enable the distress call to go out.
<BR>
So, in other words... ***MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD, BE DAMNED YE WHO READ IT***shared acts of courage, compassion and love in that face of treachery, ignorance and oppression in1849 inspire a chain reaction of events that allow humanity to continue into the 23rd Century. That's it in a nutshell, really, plus a lot of other brilliant entanglements told in linear and lateral mirror neuron narratives. Yeah, sure, it's corny as Kansas in August, but damn if I didn't love this move!! OK, yeah, comic book Eastern philosophy 101 for the sodden consumers, but also a work of great art and passion.
<BR>
And as for the all-important question of our age: who should direct the next goddam Star Wars, I would gladly see one helmed by the Wachowski-Tykwer troika.

And part of it was shot in Düsseldorf, where I life, so that was cool (some of the San Fransico stuff)!
The movie is not as smart as it thinks it is, BUT it is also not as pretentious or dumb as some critics make it out to be. Its a movie about what it means to be human and how we affect each other. It also puts almost everything that makes our lives unique in the story.

they very much want you to have a philosophical discussion about Cloud Atlas on your way home, but there's very little there. Like I said, I enjoyed it but there's no way you can Malick it. I'm not looking forward to hearing idiots try and reverse-engineer some deeper meaning out of it.<P>
It doesn't actually go anywhere, but that's fine cause the stories are enjoyable enough. Well edited, in the sense that it must have been fucking hard to keep that many balls in the air without making your audience want to scream.